Cosmodragoon
New member
I just enjoyed reading a thread about .22 vs .22 magnum in a variety of uses. It got me thinking though... With the exception of very small game, why even bother with .22 in a handgun?
The .22s use a smaller bullet in a rimfire cartridge while the .32s use a larger bullet in a centerfire cartridge. Yet, both are relatively small and have relatively light recoil. Both allow for more shots than heavier calibers. You can carry more .22 LRs in your clip or cylinder. However, the .22 magnum is typically the same capacity as .32s in revolver.
When it comes to power, .22 LR is clearly bottom-barrel and many shooters eschew it for self-defense. Its magnum cousin has enthusiastic supporters but on a pistol platform, does any .22 really compete with the modern .32 family?
I specify "modern" because there are much older rounds like the .32 S&W, short and long. I don't expect many people to hunt these down and carry them defensively. I don't think a mass-market revolver has been made exclusively for these older rounds in decades. However, you can always load them into revolvers chambered for the respectable .32 H&R Magnum or the impressive .327 Federal Magnum. That means the modern .32 revolvers have a built-in low-power option if you really need it for some reason. I sometimes use them with new shooters to help tin cans get down from on top of the fence.
While the .22s do shine with ridiculous capacity in some semi-automatics, reports of malfunction are more common than I'd like. The real benefit seems to be that .22 is more common and more platforms for it exist. That is both the result and sustaining force for the .22. If it is otherwise inferior for most of the purposes for which people carry pistols, then that paradigm should be challenged. If it is challenged effectively, we may someday see a revolution in .32. Right now, I do my part by carrying it almost every day.
The .22s use a smaller bullet in a rimfire cartridge while the .32s use a larger bullet in a centerfire cartridge. Yet, both are relatively small and have relatively light recoil. Both allow for more shots than heavier calibers. You can carry more .22 LRs in your clip or cylinder. However, the .22 magnum is typically the same capacity as .32s in revolver.
When it comes to power, .22 LR is clearly bottom-barrel and many shooters eschew it for self-defense. Its magnum cousin has enthusiastic supporters but on a pistol platform, does any .22 really compete with the modern .32 family?
I specify "modern" because there are much older rounds like the .32 S&W, short and long. I don't expect many people to hunt these down and carry them defensively. I don't think a mass-market revolver has been made exclusively for these older rounds in decades. However, you can always load them into revolvers chambered for the respectable .32 H&R Magnum or the impressive .327 Federal Magnum. That means the modern .32 revolvers have a built-in low-power option if you really need it for some reason. I sometimes use them with new shooters to help tin cans get down from on top of the fence.
While the .22s do shine with ridiculous capacity in some semi-automatics, reports of malfunction are more common than I'd like. The real benefit seems to be that .22 is more common and more platforms for it exist. That is both the result and sustaining force for the .22. If it is otherwise inferior for most of the purposes for which people carry pistols, then that paradigm should be challenged. If it is challenged effectively, we may someday see a revolution in .32. Right now, I do my part by carrying it almost every day.